Feb 15, 2007 3:15pm
Re: hey al gore i give you mr.george carlin
The Myth of Manmade Global Warming
Yes we are in a long-term global warming trend, but this trend is not manmade nor is it in any way exceptional as is illustrated below.
see: The history of climate
The current warming trend began in the 1700s with the end of the last Little Ice Age, but we are still far below the medieval optimum and earlier warm periods.
Large Historic temperature swings were experienced throughout the present interglacial period.
For a simplified illustration that also includes the significantly warmer interglacial optimum of 500-7000 years ago when mankind's presence was minuscule on the planet, see: "The Ice Age Is Coming" by Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection Warsaw, Poland - The report is in pdf format - see page 58 (8 of 15) for the large temperature swings throughout the present interglacial period in which the current global warming is but a blip that doesn't even come close to the much warmer historic temperatures. And all of that happened long before there was anything manmade in the atmosphere except smoke from few camp fires.
The point is that the planet has been warming and cooling by natural means that are way beyond our ability to alter or prevent. Even the current warming tend, which began in the mid-1600s, began long before manmade greenhouse gases were created by industrial activity that is currently blamed for global warming in one of the most deeply reaching political cover-up projects in history, which is obviously designed to hide the impending return of the Ice Age.
Global warming assumptions based of false CO2 measurements.
in a statement written for the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation - March 2004 - Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski warns the U.S. legislature that the current global warming doctrine is based on the assumption that manmade greenhouse gases have been rapidly accumulating in the global atmosphere during the last hundred years. Indeed, measurements from ice core samples are cited to prove the escalating trend. He warns that this proof is apparent based on a fundamental 'errors' since it is known in the scientific community that gases trapped in glacial ice are compressed and dissolved, or crystallized under the enormous pressures of the accumulating ice masses. It is known that when the deep ice core samples are drilled out and brought to the surface the confining pressure is removed. The gases expand and fracture the ice, by which a portion escapes through the micro fractures. He points out that the result is that the deeper layers yield fewer such gases, since a portion has has escaped through the micro fractures. He warns that the resulting false result is cited as proof that there were fewer such gases historically, which can be disproved by various types of historic biological measurements. These biological measurements indicate, not surprisingly, that the CO2 contents in the atmosphere was roughly the same in the mid-1600s when the current warming trend began.
For more details please refer to the statement by Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. on CO2 measurements - written for the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation - March 2004. (Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski is a world-renowned atmospheric scientist and mountaineer, who has excavated ice of 17 glaciers on 6 continents in his over 50-year career.)
The CO2 portion of the global greenhouse effect is minuscule.
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski also points out in his paper "The Ice Age Is Coming" that the supposedly "dangerous" increase in global CO2 gases (the non-existing 30% increase) was dwarfed in historic times by CO2 levels that were 18 times higher during the Ordovician Period 440 million years ago when glaciers expanded in both hemispheres of the planet and eventually resulted in an a Ice Age that led to the second-most extensive extinction of life in geologic history.
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski further points out in his paper that the CO2 portion of the global greenhouse effect is minuscule in comparison with greenhouse effect of water vapour which is responsible for 96% to 99% of the total greenhouse effect. He suggests that whatever affects the water vapour affects 96% to 99% of the total greenhouse effect and thereby the global climate. (see page 4 of 15)
Solar Cycles, not CO2, affect our climate (both the warming and the cooling cycles.)
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski points to the well-known fact that the water vapour content in the atmosphere is to a large measure affected by the ionization that occurs in the troposphere under the influence of cosmic radiation. Ionized particles are many times more attractive to water vapour than non-ionized particles. By this effect the intensity of cosmic radiation is major factor in cloud formation.
Zbigniew Jaworowski points out that cloudiness and water vapour are nearly a hundred times more influential on global temperature variations than all the rest of the greenhouse gases combined. He suggests for example, that if it were possible to double the global CO2 concentration, the effect could be cancelled out by a 1% increase in cloudiness.
It is also known that large swings in the intensity of cosmic radiation is not unusual for the Earth, and that this intensity is greatly influenced by the intensity of solar cycles manifest in solar winds and magnetic storms, which shield the Earth to some degree from cosmic radiation.
The bottom line is that the intensity of cosmic radiation effecting cloud formation and thereby our climate, is governed by solar cycles and not by any manmade effects. Therefore, the global warming and global cooling cycles are definitely not caused by variances of CO2 and other gases.
The current global warming trend may be coming to an end.
In real terms, the manmade global warming doctrine is a myth. It is conjured up for political objectives that have nothing to do with anything real in the physical universe.
Zbigniew Jaworowski cites a Russian report form the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics in Irkutsk, suggesting that the global warming trend that brought us out of the last Little Ice Age might be reversing again. At least is has been doing that in Irkutsk. The average annual temperature that has been measured at the institute had peaked in 1997 at 2.3 degrees C. and then dropped gradually to 0.4 degrees by 2000, after which it levelled off at the current minus 0.1 degrees.
The institute at Irkutsk has also measured corresponding variances in sunspot cycles that typically precede global air temperature changes by three years. Scientists at the institute tell us that the current 11-year sunspot cycle is weaker and that they expect the foreseeable next two cycles to be weaker still, going into the mid-2020s.
Global cooling can give us warmer temperatures
(not a contradiction).
The current summer heat wave that is widely attributed to global warming is actually consistent with global cooling.
A new Ice Age is on the horizon. It is caused by the diminishing intensity of the sun's sunspot cycles. The diminished solar activity in turn allows more cosmic radiation to reach the earth, thereby increasing cloudiness with the corresponding decrease in water vapour in the atmosphere which provides 97% of the greenhouse effect that makes the Earth warm and liveable. In short, the Earth's greenhouse mantle is slowly diminishing towards the coming new Ice Age. But why would this trend give us warmer temperatures?
The answer lies in the nature of the greenhouse effect. The sun is our heat source. Its energy comes to the surface of the Earth in the form of short-wavelength radiation that cuts right through the greenhouse mantle and heats up the land and the oceans. But the heat that is so created on the surface, the 'dark-body' heat of the earth, is reflected back into the atmosphere in the form of long-wavelength radiation. A portion of that heat is absorbed there and reflected back to Earth, retaining it, similar to the way that heat is retained in a greenhouse. When the greenhouse effect becomes diminished, less heat is reflected back, whereby the Earth becomes colder. However, the sun also emits heat in the form of long-wavelength radiation. When the greenhouse effect is strong much of this incoming heat is reflected back into space, but when the greenhouse effect is weak, less is reflected back into space and more is reaching the Earth. The result is that the climate tends to get hotter during the clear summer days, even while it gets colder in general. Moscow reports 40-below deep-freeze temperatures in the winter and 40-above steam oven temperatures in the summer. The effect of greenhouse mantle is to moderate these harsh differences. As the greenhouse diminishes, the moderation also diminishes, creating stronger heat waves and cold periods. The resulting lack of moderation is especially noticeable in the oceans, which are thereby are getting warmer since the oceans retain their heat better than land does. The great forests are similarly effected by the more intense heat penetration, even though the climate is getting colder.
It is easy to cry "global warming" when the heat waves are scorching the Earth. Unfortunately the resulting hoopla is taking us in the wrong direction leading to incorrect responses. Society goes into fear and destroys its economies to lower CO2 greenhouse gases to fight manmade global warming, without ever realizing that there is no such thing as manmade global warming and CO2 is not a factor when 97% of the greenhouse effect comes from water vapour. The bottom line is that the entire CO2-based manmade global-warming hoopla is built on a lie. No facet of it concurs with real history. And why should we be surprised at this, since it has become morally acceptable to lie to society on a grand scale in the name of political objectives, or imperial 'business' objectives? Shouldn't we be more concerned with understanding what is really affecting our climate?
Large-scale protests by the scientific community against the global warming doctrine.
One of the lies is that we are told in the media, is that the general scientific community supports the manmade global warming doctrine. Nothing could be further from the fact. Three major petition projects have been launched by the international scientific community, which are poof of that.
The Heidelberg Appeal
The first of these official declarations of protest by the scientific community was the 1992 Heidelberg Appeal. The appeal was launched from the University City of Heidelberg in Germany as a protest statement against the unscientific global warming assumptions and the draconian demands based on it. This pioneering appeal netted the Heidelberg organizers 4000 signatures from scientists from 69 countries and 63 Nobel Laureates . Of course, one shouldn't be surprised that this massive appeal didn't even make it onto the 'agenda' of the Rio climate conference in 1992. The conference was already then known to follow a political agenda rather than the truth.
The Leipzig Declaration
Subsequent to this failure by the scientific community to get the truth heard, and undeterred by the defeat, the next protest declaration was launched from Leipzig, again in Germany, which became known as Leipzig Declaration. This time the project was focused on getting signatures from exclusively the world's actual climate specialists, in condemnation of the global warming doctrine.
The Leipzig Declaration project brought together 110 protest signatures from the leading experts in the climate science field. The project was completed in time for the 1997 Kyoto climate conference. But once again, the voice of the actual experts wasn't heard. Dissent evidently wasn't 'welcome' at the Kyoto conference either. After all, the conference had been organized to rubber-stamp the global warming doctrine and to enforce it. Evidently, the outcome of the conference had been largely predetermined, which is usually the case with these kinds of UN world-conference events for which the delegates are generally hand-picked for their commitment to the predetermined conclusions.
The Oregon Petition Project
After the voice of dissent had been successfully hidden at the Kyoto conference, another petition project was launched by the scientific community, the so-called Oregon Petition Project (it was actually run out of California). The petition project brought together an unprecedented 17,000 signatures from scientists from around the world, urging the world's government not to ratify the unscientific assumptions behind the Kyoto Accord.
A combined report on the opposition from the scientific community was published in an 1999 newspaper article (Feb. 1), of The New Federalist, Leesburg, VA, by the atmospheric scientist Hugh W. Ellsaesser, retired form Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory after 23 years of atmospheric and climate research and 20 years as an Air Weather Officer for the U.S. Air Force.
The Kyoto Protocol met with an 85% rejection across the world by 2004.
The reality is that in 2004, five years after Ellsaesser's article was written, and seven years after Kyoto, in spite of all the claims in the general media of a supposed global consensus on global warming, only 32 countries of the 210 that adopted the Kyoto Protocol have actually ratified it. This lack of a positive response amounts to an 85% rejection of the protocol.
The widespread rejection of the Kyoto Protocol might be contributed in part to the Oregon Petition Project, and possibly to a gradual awakening to reality that is involved.
The prestigious Russian Academy of Sciences, for example, has published its conclusion in May 2004, confirming that the Kyoto Protocol does not have any scientific grounds whatsoever.
Nevertheless, the global warming hoopla continues. The evident goal appears to be to prevent the outbreak of a New Renaissance across the world, which would result in a powerful new thrust for humanist and scientific progress. This progress towards a new renaissance is what the imperial powers fear more than anything else. And rightfully so, because a highly developed humanity would not tolerate the continued looting of the world. That is what the imperials would not survive, who deepened on looting. But it would enable mankind to survive. Thus, the future existence of 99% of mankind hangs in the balance over a globally staged attempt to cover up the truth with a lie.
The history of the global warming dogma.
The global warming dogma was 'invented' in the early 1970s when the scientific community became concerned about the necessary economic development that would assure the survival of mankind in the dramatically changing world caused by the return of the Ice Age. Calls were raised to organize an international meeting to discuss what measures would be required to meet the challenges of the coming Ice Age. This meeting never took place. The agenda was hijacked and turned upside down by imperial forces to pull the focus away from the near return of the Ice Age. The doctrine of global warming was 'invented' and put in place to accomplished that, to prevent a global economic renaissance by all possible means.
Great scare stories were conjured up to get the counter-organizing momentum going, build on the basis of 'scientific' lies. One scientist of the group of the counter-organizers has put it this way: "Each of us has to decide what is the right balance between being effective and being honest." (Quoted by the late Dr. Dixy Lee Ray -- head of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission 1972-1975 and governor of Washington 1977-1981, -- presented in an article, "Global Warming, Ozone Depletion--Where's the Evidence?" published in 21st Century Science and Technology special report, November 1997, page 80, based on an address by Dr. Ray to the Jefferson Energy Foundation in Washington D.C. on Oct. 15 1991)
While the lies continue, the Ice Age is coming.
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski explores in his paper whether mankind will be able to protect its biosphere against the returning Ice Age. He suggests that the answer depends on how much time we still have. He suggests that statistically the return of the Ice Age is already overdue by half a percent (500 years) and might be happening soon. He suggests that mankind won't be able to acquire the knowledge and the resources in the next 50 years to govern the climate of the world. He points out that even the most intense effort to double the global CO2 levels (should this be actually possible) would be trifling. In other words, nothing that is in our power can prevent the Ice Age from recurring and its radically reduced global temperatures. We can only prevent the consequences by large-scale scientific, technological, and economic means.
The bottom line is that the only hope that mankind has to maintain its biosphere that its very existence depends on, it to build the technological infrastructures that enable mankind to shift its food production into indoor facilities. Technologically, such a feat is totally possible. The material and energy resources are available to do this. Also the intense economic development is possible to achieve that would enable mankind to build the needed vast infrastructures on a near global scale. But will mankind do it?
Considering what is at stake and the potential urgency of it, the scientific and economic development and the building processes should begin now, in our time. Tragically nothing is happening on this front. Mankind's economic resources are instead being destroyed at an amazing rate and what is left is devoted to war. Nor will we see a reverse in this trend for as long as the return of the Ice Age continues to be hidden behind the mythical fairy tale of global warming. Only the consequences on our food resources cannot be hidden.
Our global food resources seem to be far more vulnerable to global cooling than we care to acknowledge, even the weak trend that has already begun. A part of this vulnerability may already be visible in the failing harvests in the U.S. grain belt as dryer climates are beginning to develop. (See: Alpha Omega Newswire report, June 13, 2006.
Will mankind make the needed breakthrough to protect its food resources from the coming Ice Age cooling and live?
Who can answer that? It appears that the answer depends on what we do in the present time, and specifically what we do individually to assure that the breakthrough will happen. The question is, do we have enough love for our children and their children and for one-another across the world, and for our humanity, that we will make the 100-year effort to prepare ourselves and our world for the coming Ice Age before the transition begins? Some glacial evidence from southern Greenland suggests that the last transition began with sharp, short-term temperature fluctuations in the order of decades before the climate change-over settled down.
If the transition to the next Ice Age begins with mankind being unprepared to protect its food resources in indoor facilities, even for a few decades, the collapsing agriculture would likely reduce the global population to very small numbers. Mankind came out of the last Ice Age with only 1-10 million people, for the lack of food resources. We won't do much better this time around. Mankind might be able to support a 100 million people maximum (1% of the expected population in a hundred years time) and bring that remnant through the next 90,000-year cold spell. This might be the best that mankind can do if the Ice Age resumes without the world being prepared for it with indoor agriculture. However, should we, today, choose to take steps to protect the global food resources from the expected 'near' return of the Ice Age, we would have to start soon, because time may be running out. It will likely take mankind at least 100 years to develop the technologies, power systems, financial resources, and a high-powered economy that can build the infrastructures. A hundred years might be all that we've got left (if we are lucky).
Are we willing to go this route and protect our future?
That's the question we need to answer urgently. Dreaming about global warming won't allow us to even consider that question. That's the great danger that we face with the global warming doctrine. The future survival of 99% of humanity is at stake. The outcome will most likely be determined by how we answer that question in our time.